On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:16, Paul Rosen wrote:

> An interesting article here, that challenges the assumptions behind cycling promotion in the UK as well as the USA, I think.  I'd be interested to know how true it rings for those who've been doing more recent research on cycling than I have.
> 
> http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-06-20-bicyclings-gender-gap-its-the-economy-stupid
> 
> Paul

(Hello - this is my first post - I'm an independent researcher based in Glasgow and new to cycling research but not cycling. 
- I've been doing ethnography to do with the design of HCI and collaborative and ubiquitous computing for the last 14 or so years but have started to wonder if some of the things I have learnt can apply to cycling research.)

It seems like this question is almost a Rorschach one which brings to light the particular local knowledge and also concerns of the various respondents. I'm getting the impression that there are a whole list of factors which contribute to the lack of women cycling, and the factors may vary from place to place. The constancy (lack of women cycling) may well be dependant on quite different things in different places. 

I'll try to contribute my 'local knowledge' in the form, not so much of statements of what I have discovered, but questions I'd raise based on my experiences, of a number of cities. I've lived on and off in Amsterdam, Trondheim (Norway) and Glasgow. I'll try to give a little 'context' to the questions I raise. This is unsystematic, and not the result of serious ethngraphic enquiry, but from a long experience of Amsterdam in particular and also Berlin and Trondheim. My main thrust might be: it's also about infrastructure, geography, layout, and all the historical/political processes which make a city a particular layout... 
Or..."It's a different view of urbanism, stupid"

It was pointed out earlier how the cycling rates in the Netherlands are roughly equivalent for males and females. One question I would raise is - how does this change through the life cycle? My suspicion would be that even if child -rearing is still an activity mainly done by women, it might not mean that they cycle less. My experience of Amsterdam is that infrastructure, journey length and the urban geography have a lot to do here, as well as the car (un)friendliness of a city. I'm particularly focussed on childrearing here, as I think this is a time where often one goes quite quickly from the being a woman who cycles to a mum in a car or people carrier. I'm also thinking of my encounters with men and women on Backfietsen - the 'delivery bikes' one sees in Amsterdam, with a capacious container at the front which I've seen contain children, furniture, groceries, fridges, boxes, ...and dogs. 

Is it something to do with women (and men) still cycling when childrearing?
Is it something to do with urban geography and the achievability of unremarkable childrearing done by bike?
Is it something to do with the 'pre-car' layout of some cities?
Is it something to do with planning laws and the zoning/complexity of cities?

What I mean by 'unremarkable childrearing done by bike' is that it is childrearing by bike done not because one is a green warrior, but rather because one can simply and boringly do it... and it's really nothing much to think about. Why wouldn't one?

The urban geography of Amsterdam means that supermarkets are very much part of the city - Albert Hein, a supermarket chain, is dotted throughout the city. There is no need to go a journey out of a 'bike friendly zone' into any conflicting and confusing mix of say, A-roads which look like motorways etc to go to an out of town supermarket. There are also markets which take place every day, (such as the main food market in Albert Cuypstraat, Nordemaarkt) and even if one does not live in the centre, one can get to the centre from the peripheries of the city quickly. Everyday, unremarkable living is done not by great expedition, but by going to local shops and markets, and sourcing other goods such as clothes on easy to reach shopping streets. These are not in out of town locations but are in the centre of the city, cheek by jowl with residential housing (which is often also social housing). Some housing may also be 'regularised' former squats. Some urban writers have raised cities like Amsterdam to show the folly of zoning. 

Is there still the school run at least for young ages?
Is it something to do with achievable journey length as a function of urban geography?

More, because Amsterdam is a compact city by some standards, the journey length is such that a 'school run' and afterschool activities, shopping, socialising can all be done in a 'cyclable' distance. I'm thinking of cities like Houston, Texas or Los Angeles where the car has had a profound effect on the way these cities are spread out. (I could cite much urbanism work here but I'm sure you know it). There may still be a 'school run' but because of the way the city is laid out, the run may be done by foot or by bike. The nearness of all sorts of different resource in a cyclable distance means one might be doing the exact equivalent of other cities (getting groceries, dropping of kids, buying clothes, seeing friends, going to one's work) but the achievement can be done by bike. Actually, the way the city is laid out means that it is often quite a long walk to get to different things by foot. Foot can often mean 'foot and tram'. 

Is it a function of flatness?

I think we must be careful to over-look some really 'obvious' things. I've used different Dutch bikes, and tried Backfietsen, some with a trycycle shape at front with two wheels and a box, some with a long box and a front wheel steered through long steering mechanism. I see these a lot with children in them. To ride them on the flat, they are absolutely fine, but I would imagine in a hillier country one would soon struggle. A flat city allows sizeable loads to be taken by bike. When we think of the 'minivan' which is home to the 'soccer mom' this is replaced to a large extent by the bike. 

Something to do with tradition, with 'Dutchness'?
Not about identity, so much as transport expectation?

You can't use a Backfiets or bike for carrying your kids if every five minutes a person 'tuts' and says how dangerous it is. Dave's statement about the way in which these safety rhetorics (I suppose I'd call them) can limit people is very perceptive. But in a country with a robust and sensible attitude, this is unremarkably achievable. One's use of bikes to transport children is not needing of any account. It's simply a part of being Dutch, an Amsterdammer, a citizen of Mokum. One can also not use a bakfiets unremarkably if they are thin on the ground. But if bikes suitable for children are in good supply, and shops happily sell child seats, and all the paraphinalia of biking with children, this is unremarkably achievable. 

I'll stop there so that I actually send this email... 

alan munro

www.munrobius.com